Four Zen monks were meditating in a monastery. All of a sudden the prayer flag on the roof started flapping.
The younger monk came out of his meditation and said: "Flag is flapping"
A more experienced monk said: "Wind is flapping"
A third monk who had been there for more than 20 years said: "Mind is flapping."
The fourth monk who was the eldest said, visibly annoyed: "Mouths are flapping!"

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Nine Full Bows to Flapping Mouths Members

As some of you may have noted. I have deleted one of my posts. Before explaining why, let me first give my heartfelt thanks to all who shared their thoughts with me. Your words helped me to consider the whole premise from a fresh, new perspective.

I have already shared my reasoning concerning my decision via email with another. Part of that email said:

To be honest with you, this whole experience has been very instructive for me. Even when I wrote the original book review (at amazon) some years back, I was acting on a kind of 51 to 49 % feeling about what the proper action should be on my part. 51% saying I needed to do something, 49% saying I had done enough by writing to both authors. Hence, when I did write it, I only hinted at --deleted-- actions saying that he had "borrowed" heavily from --deleted-- book without permission. I did not say he actually "stole" anything, nor did I offer the detailed examples. In the end, I felt I had done my part (though with some doubts still grinding), and after awhile I pretty much forgot all about it.

Then, when I received some email questioning the validity of my "implications" it all came back, and once again I was not certain on if or how to respond. I finally decided to verify my "charges" by providing the examples. Based on my own past experience and the "wise counsel" I sought on this issue, it seemed like the appropriate response. Yet, it still bothered me.

When I decided to post it on the blog, I knew it would be controversial, but I think now it was quite helpful for me because it has allowed me to see it fresh, and from perspectives I had not previously considered. This "newfound" perspective brought me to a decisive resolution on the whole thing (at least for now. Ha!).

It seems that the overall effect of my "action" has done very little good in the practical world of everyday life.

I decided that my time and energy would be much better spent in trying to share what little experience and or insight I might have on pointing out where to step, rather than not where to step.

I am going to delete my posts, and also delete my book review. In my expressions, written or otherwise, I have decided to try to avoid bit**ing about all the BS that might be going on in the name of "Buddhism" and instead, try to stay focused on the "authentic" teachings - whatever that means. If I do think there is some necessity to point out something that may pose a threat to students, I will try to keep it in general terms - that is, I will try to put principles before personalities...

So, once again, thank you all for your guidance on this issue.Nine full bows,Ted

4 Comments:

Ted, I found this today in an article, an interview with Ken Wilbur on Salon.com and thought it another applicable, if belated, answer to your question:

There's an assumption that master contemplatives, people who can reach exalted states of enlightenment, are wonderful human beings, that goodness radiates from them. Do you think that's true?

"Nothing's ever quite that simple. There are different kinds of intelligence, and they develop at different rates. If your moral development reaches up into the trans-personal levels, then you tend to be St. Teresa. But some, like Picasso, have their cognitive development very high but their moral development is in the bloody basement. We think someone is enlightened in every aspect of their lives, but that's rarely the case."